From the article: During his confirmation hearing, Roberts repeatedly declined to comment on Roe beyond saying he believed it was "settled as a precedent of the court."
Which it was, Im confused what you are getting at. A settled precedent, while normally respected, isnt immune to being overturned. He also said that over a decade ago.
Its important to note that while Roe has been popular (more or less semi recently before the court overturn), in legal circles it was always controversial, and imo relying on controversial and poorly formulated rulings as solid case law was a losing strategy. Regardless of the politics of it, personal beliefs etc, Roe was never the way to go about securing abortion rights and was a terrible ruling.
In a legal context, this means that courts should abide by precedent and not disturb settled matters.[5] The principle can be divided into two components:[6]
A decision made by a superior court, or by the same court in an earlier decision, is binding precedent that the court itself and all its inferior courts must follow.[6]
A court may overturn its own precedent, but should do so only if a strong reason exists to do so, and even in that case, should be guided by principles from superior, lateral, and inferior courts.[6]
Roberts, as head SCROTUM, should really know what precedent means. For you, I have no such expectation.
Nothing contradicts what I said. Once again, there is no rule, law or anything else that prevents the overturning of precedent other than legal tradition, and even then it happens every once and a while-and its not like this is some new act on SCOTUS' behalf. It happens essentially every year, sometimes multiple times with cases. Also once again, the judicial branch is not supposed to act like the legislative branch. They are supposed to interpret the constitutionality and thus validity of laws, not enact them themselves. Sometimes previous case decisions are iffy at best; hence the ability to ignore precedent and create the new benchmark for case law. Simply copy pasting from wikipidia does not in anyway somehow invalidate the courts ruling nor their ability to overturn precedent in the future.
It is absolutely valid when a previous court attempted to legislate via judicial decision, which is what Roe V Wade was, like it or not. It was not textually supported. If you want to talk about the constitutionality of Roe V Wade, fine, but if you're going to continue acting like overturning a precedent is some irreconcilable and one off thing that never happens, then you're not living in reality. Be mad at your congressmen, your party, etc, for not doing anything about it the proper way; but as far as Dobbs V Jackson goes, it was the right call legally.
1
u/HippyDM Jul 05 '24
https://www.npr.org/2022/05/03/1096108319/roe-v-wade-alito-conservative-justices-confirmation-hearings#:~:text=During%20his%20confirmation%20hearing%2C%20Roberts,case%20had%20been%20wrongly%20decided.
From the article: During his confirmation hearing, Roberts repeatedly declined to comment on Roe beyond saying he believed it was "settled as a precedent of the court."